2018 (9) TMI 626 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Validity of Assessment Order - assessment years 2010-2011 to 2015-2016 - Held that - It is evident that the Assessing Officer, has not acted with independent application of mind, while passing the impugned orders of assessment. On the other hand, it is apparent that he has been carried over by the report filed by the Enforcement Officials, which course, in the considered view of this Court, is not sustainable - matter remitted back to the Assessing Officer to re-do the assessment, once again, on merits and in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner - petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging assessment orders for the years 2010-2011 to 2015-2016 due to defective notices, objections not considered, and lack of independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer.

Analysis:
The writ petitions challenged assessment orders for multiple years citing various grievances. The petitioner argued that the notices of proposal were defective as they did not provide a reasonable opportunity to raise objections. The Assessing Officer allegedly based the notices on an inspection report without independent assessment. Despite the petitioner's objections, they were not considered, and the Officer rejected them claiming the petitioner had accepted the issues during inspection. The Court found the Assessing Officer failed to apply an independent mind and set aside the assessment orders, remitting the matter for re-assessment.

The Court noted that the Assessing Officer did not invite objections within a stipulated time in the defective notices. Despite the petitioner raising objections, the Officer rejected them solely based on the earlier acceptance of issues during inspection. The Court emphasized the need for the Officer to independently assess objections and facts, not solely rely on enforcement reports. The Court concluded the Officer lacked independent judgment, setting aside the assessment orders for re-assessment based on merit and law.

The petitioner raised concerns about the Officer who sent the inspection report now being the Assessing Officer, potentially biasing the reassessment. The Court acknowledged the validity of this concern and directed the appointment of a new, independent Assessing Officer to avoid any prejudice. Consequently, the Court allowed the writ petitions, setting aside the assessment orders and instructing the appointment of a new Officer for re-assessment within four weeks, emphasizing fairness and justice in the process.